[Eg-oversight-board] Statement of Clarification
Terran McCanna
tmccanna at georgialibraries.org
Tue May 17 17:47:59 EDT 2016
For the benefit of the record, I would like to add two things to this
message that I feel were obfuscated:
>>a. On February 17, I was notified by the Board Secretary, Chris
Sharp, that Tanya had been going to him privately to resolve issues for the
conference and to deal with the SFC, excluding the conference committee
altogether.<<
Chris Sharp was the designated liaison to the SFC at the time. The role of
SFC liaison is to facilitate communication between the SFC and other
parties that have to work with the SFC.
>>b. If the issues discussed between Tanya, Chris, and the SFC included
the PINES sponsorship issues or anything regarding the Emerald Data
sponsorships, I would point out that there is a potential conflict of
interest in that involvement since GPLS is Chris’ employer and Emerald Data
is their vendor.<<
Grace neglected to mention that GPLS also has a current contract with
Equinox. Equinox is as much "our" vendor as Emerald is.
Terran McCanna
PINES Program Manager
Georgia Public Library Service
1800 Century Place, Suite 150
Atlanta, GA 30345
404-235-7138
tmccanna at georgialibraries.org
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Grace Dunbar <gdunbar at esilibrary.com>
wrote:
> All,
>
> I appreciate Tanya’s thoughts on how the conference planning can be
> improved. There are many things that do need to be improved and the EOB
> and conference committee are actively working on these changes. However, I
> do take exception to the implication that there was a conflict of interest
> in my role as the Chair of the standing Conference Committee because I am
> employed by Equinox. This hits me particularly hard because this is not at
> all how Tanya clarified her statements to me, in person, after the EOB
> meeting.
>
>
>
> I take my Board responsibilities very seriously and I strive to ensure
> that, as a representative of the Project, regardless of my personal or
> professional relationship with any group or individual, I treat them
> equitably.
>
>
>
> I invite the current EOB, former EOB members, and any previous Evergreen
> conference organizers to please weigh in with your opinions on the
> guidelines and statements I provided in the course of the 2016 conference
> process.
>
>
>
> Below I have detailed, as best as my memory and fast email scraping
> allows, the issues that involved other vendors and sponsorships for the
> conference. Please note that some of the issues that are detailed below
> are issues where the Project, if not following the guidelines, could
> inadvertently get the SFC in trouble with the IRS and they could
> potentially lose their 501c3 status. Hence, the issues have implications
> outside our community.
>
>
>
> 1.) On May 13, 2015 GPLS broached the idea of a PINES Birthday Party
> (separate from the reception). Tanya asked me how this should be included
> in the budget and she and I agreed that since this was branded as a PINES
> birthday party with specific money they wanted to put towards it, GPLS
> should handle that separately – in other words, don’t put it in your budget
> if you’re not in control of how the money is spent. We agreed that it
> sounded like a good “after hours” event separate from the Reception.
>
> a. In October, the SFC weighed in on the idea of a PINES birthday
> party when it was brought up again. In essence, the SFC stated that the
> conference should add a specific sponsorship for the “Evergreen birthday
> party” and allow all sponsors to participate, inviting members from PINES
> to assist in the planning. I echoed the concerns the SFC had about the
> birthday party and gave my support to the SFC’s plan.
>
> b. In January, the Hosts stated that GPLS would be sponsoring “cake,
> champagne, and a band” for the reception. In email I asked Tanya not to
> make statements of this nature since sponsors do not get to dictate exactly
> how their contributions are spent. I also expressed concern over two issues.
>
> i. The conference was
> in the red and the Hosts were committing funds to non-essentials. For
> those who have never done a conference of this size, there is a food and
> beverage minimum of tens of thousands of dollars that must be satisfied in
> house. I suggested that it was irresponsible to spend money on bands and
> cake from outside sources instead of satisfying the food and beverage
> minimum.
>
> ii. GPLS wanted to
> support the party monetarily; however, they were unable to provide a
> sponsorship. They emailed the SFC in February, restating the intent to
> provide “cake, champagne, and a band” for the “birthday party” with a plan
> to sell PINES t-shirts and have the proceeds go toward the “extras” at the
> reception. Tony at the SFC and I both voiced concerns over earmarked
> donations for the conference that wasn’t part of the offered conference
> sponsorships.
>
> 1. To paraphrase something we have heard from the SFC in the past
> regarding conferences, “…allowing sponsors to circumvent the project's
> budget would prevent the project from using sponsorship income to guard
> against shortfalls.”
>
> iii. My suggestion at
> this point to the Hosts was to offer a special Birthday Party sponsorship
> to ALL sponsors. The Host committee chose not to pursue that option but
> agreed on March 3 to strike the cake and champagne. The Host proposed that
> the EOB or NC Cardinal recognize the ten years of Evergreen at the
> Reception and invite someone from GPLS to say a few words. I agreed with
> that approach.
>
> 1. Note that the cake was later ordered without any notification to
> the conference committee.
>
> iv. The Host later stated
> that Emerald Data, who was the actual sponsor of the Reception, would
> provide a “welcome speech” before introducing someone from GPLS. I stated
> that it was inappropriate for a vendor to receive a platform of this nature
> when other vendors did not. The Breakfast sponsors and the Hackfest
> sponsors did not get to speak at their sponsored events so I suggested
> (strongly) that NC Cardinal provide the welcome and introduction for GPLS
> to speak.
>
> c. Emerald Data then requested to provide a “giveaway” at the
> reception. The conference committee was not informed as to what the nature
> of this giveaway was and so my recommendation was to not provide that
> option. The conference provides space in the exhibits area for giveaways
> and we traditionally don’t allow sponsors to use their sponsored event as
> advertising. Also, the SFC needs the opportunity to “vet” giveaways.
>
> 2.) There was an issue that was not well understood regarding tote bag
> inserts.
>
> a. I did not specifically cover tote bag inserts with the Hosts until
> February when I sent a reminder of ‘Phase Three things to do before the
> conference’. There was confusion over a previous email that listed the
> SFC constraints on “swag” that is given out at the conference and swag was
> conflated with tote bag inserts. The official position of the conference
> (both the conference committee and the SFC) is that we do not allow
> non-conference inserts into the official bags/packets.
>
> b. Unfortunately, the Hosts had already accepted some tote bag
> inserts form a local organization NC Live and the NC Library for the
> Blind. To further complicate matters, representatives from that NC Live
> were being given complimentary registrations to the conference. I
> suggested removing the inserts and making them freely available on a
> table. The SFC agreed with the solution.
>
> i. I also requested
> that the free registrations be rescinded and offered to “be the bad guy”
> and explain it to the registrants. The Host assured me that they would
> handle correcting this.
>
> ii. One NC Live free
> registration was never corrected.
>
> 3.) Free registrations
>
> a. There were two complimentary registrations provided by the Hosts
> to two presenters – David Singleton (Charlotte Mecklenburg) and Julie
> Walker (GPLS). I notified the Hosts that presenters were not provided free
> registrations (with the exception of keynote speakers) and asked the Host
> to correct it or to allow me to correct it.
>
> i. The Host indicated
> in email that it was corrected, however, these were never corrected and
> these registrants did not pay registration fees.
>
> 4.) Emerald Data “wrote in” a sponsorship for $500 for Tote Bags on
> their Sponsorship form. This wasn’t a sponsorship that was offered on the
> official form that went to all the potential sponsors and it wasn’t on the
> Conference web site. Tanya stated that Emerald received an outdated form
> with a Tote Bag sponsorship on it, however, tote bags were never discussed
> as an official sponsorship.
>
> a. I asked Tanya to remove that sponsorship because we don’t offer
> special sponsorships outside the official list lest we (the Project or the
> Host) be accused of vendor bias.
>
> b. Tony Sebro, the SFC counsel also advocated for this course of
> action.
>
> c. The sponsorship was removed.
>
> 5.) Due to issues with inclusion of “extras” in a budget that was in the
> red, I sent a request on February 24 to the Hosts to strike the Band from
> the budget until such time as we could prove enough profit to pay for the
> extra expense. The Hosts responded, “ Right now the Band expense is in
> the budget and I’m confident that we will be able to meet all expenses.
> Since we are using the Conservancy to pay bills, I would assume that the
> Conservancy will pay the band bill out of the Band lineitem. I thought
> that general sponsorships paid for items like this.”
>
> My response stated, “The funds that are brought in to cover the costs of
> the conference are not to be spent at the discretion of the local
> conference committee. Those funds belong to the SFC who directs them to
> our project. Our project expenditures are directed by the EOB, not the
> local conference committee. We allow the local committees a lot of leeway
> in conference planning since they know their area and the venue best.
> However, the final decision on any budgetary matters rests with the EOB and
> SFC, not the local committee. As of now, with the budget still in the red
> and the matter of how certain sponsorships are being handled, please put
> the entertainment on hold until we can resolve this matter.”
>
> 6.) Tanya stated in her clarification, “This conflict created a need for
> another contact point very late in the planning process.”
>
> a. On February 17, I was notified by the Board Secretary, Chris
> Sharp, that Tanya had been going to him privately to resolve issues for the
> conference and to deal with the SFC, excluding the conference committee
> altogether.
>
> b. If the issues discussed between Tanya, Chris, and the SFC included
> the PINES sponsorship issues or anything regarding the Emerald Data
> sponsorships, I would point out that there is a potential conflict of
> interest in that involvement since GPLS is Chris’ employer and Emerald Data
> is their vendor.
>
> 7.) Lastly, it is clear that the EOB needs to be more transparent about
> issues surrounding past conferences. This is not the first year that a
> conference committee has been asked by Emerald Data to make concessions or
> provide changes to sponsorships. The reason my responses were so firm on
> these issues was because of past problems with this vendor at the Vancouver
> conference, the Cambridge conference, and the Hood River conference. The
> EOB has not discussed these issues openly in order to preserve community
> harmony; however, it seems it’s past time to bring more transparency to the
> process.
>
> 8.) The conference ultimately had a slim margin of profit, roughly
> $1,023.00. In my role as conference committee chair, I felt that I did my
> best to uphold the conference values and structure in accordance with past
> precedent, Project guidelines, and the SFC rules. The conference money is
> Project money and utmost care should be taken by the Hosts to ensure each
> conference is adding, rather than subtracting from the Evergreen Project’s
> coffers. Should, heaven forbid, we end up in some kind of a legal battle
> over the Evergreen name or Trademark, we would need every dime the Project
> has and then some.
>
> I hope this clarifies any vendor/sponsor related issues that I
> managed as the chair of the conference committee. I am, of course,
> available for questions and clarifications.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Grace
>
> I
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Ruth Frasur <
> director at hagerstownlibrary.org> wrote:
>
>> Tanya Prokrym has sent this Statement of Clarification regarding comments
>> made during the Evergreen Oversight Board meeting at the 2016 Evergreen
>> International Conference in Raleigh, N.C. This statement will be discussed
>> during the next EOB meeting in the #evergreen channel of IRC on Thursday,
>> May 19 at 2:00 p.m.
>>
>> --
>> Ruth Frasur
>> Director of the Historic(ally Awesome) Hagerstown - Jefferson Township
>> Library
>> 10 W. College Street in Hagerstown, Indiana (47346)
>> p (765) 489-5632; f (765) 489-5808
>>
>> *Our Kickin' Website <http://hagerstownlibrary.org>, Our Rockin'
>> Facebook Page <http://facebook.com/hjtplibrary>, and The Nettle Creek
>> Players <http://nettlecreekplayers.com>*
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> eg-oversight-board mailing list
>> eg-oversight-board at list.evergreen-ils.org
>> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eg-oversight-board
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Grace Dunbar, Vice President
> Equinox - Open Your Library
> gdunbar at esilibrary.com
> 1-877-OPEN-ILS | www.esilibrary.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eg-oversight-board mailing list
> eg-oversight-board at list.evergreen-ils.org
> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eg-oversight-board
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.evergreen-ils.org/pipermail/eg-oversight-board/attachments/20160517/d86bd132/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the eg-oversight-board
mailing list